A vision for the future of American Capitalism Moral Economics Alexander Hamilton's view was that we should protect infant industries because of the potential benefits of various businesses if they are able to take root and become part of the national economy. You can't ask a toddler to compete with athletes or professional engineers or surgeons at adult tasks; but with the right nurture and education, the infant grows to maturity and then can become competitive. Moreover, we should protect other businesses for the sake of national security, something overlooked in "bottom line" economics. What possible justification is there for not manufacturing electrical transformers in America, for instance? If there ever is a disaster that damages the power grid we would need to import transformers from China and in a major emergency the Chinese might not want to sell them to us, or might decide to charge us so much money that various businesses might become bankrupt. We almost lost Boeing's capability to manufacture air refueling takers because the EU offered a better price for such aircraft. That might have saved us a few billion dollars in the short run but in event of war, especially if Europe was hard hit, all savings would be meaningless because we might be defeated in battle. In such cases strict economic efficiency is less important than some other value. When you think about any kind of "big picture" it is no problem to conceive of still other values that are superior to economics. The environment also needs protection because, if the natural world is exploited it not only demoralizes people it imposes economic costs in the form of effects of pollution and destruction of secondary values; that is, the cheapest way to extract coal is through strip mining practices that, however, destroy the tourist potential of a region and cause medical harm to people in an area effected by chemical runoff due to a form of mining that exposes poisonous subsoil to the elements. There may be other kinds of costs for other industries if, for example, a port is silted up or sinkholes swallow houses. There is also a cultural imperative. The wrong kind of culture within a company and the business falls apart or, at best, "underperforms." However, the wrong kind of culture and a nation falls apart or becomes economically inefficient.
Certain social values are necessary for a smoothly functioning society. Other values can undermine or damage or ruin a society. At the head of this list is greed, closely followed by excessive status seeking, rapaciousness, and lack of community consciousness. Another way of saying the same thing is that libertarianism or its cousin, laissez faire Capitalism, have no solutions at all for these kinds of problems. Indeed, by valorizing avarice and materialism, libertarianism and laissez faire make matters worse. This is masked by the fact that greed can generate wealth. A monopoly business can be very profitable. Price gouging or excessive profits can mean that a class of people do very well for themselves and, in the process, some economic advantages accrue to others via "trickle down" effects. The question is how do we change the system so that necessary and "good" social values become widely popular and are regarded as necessary for any respectable business, and all "anti-values" become anathema to just about everyone and simply are never indulged in. This said, we cannot eliminate economic self interest, nor should we want to do any such thing. People are not angels, they may well have '"better natures" but they are also creatures of passion and of an assortment of passions, and seeking advantage, including economic advantage, is part of human nature. What is the solution? Part #1 is identifying the problem for what it is. This means an imperative to discredit libertarian political philosophy and also laissez faire economic thinking. Part # 2 is just as necessary, or even more important. It is vital to show that an alternative to the existing Capitalist model is feasible and can produce impressive results for large numbers of people. This obviously means that we must abandon failed models like that in effect in various Communist regimes in the past -as well as more recent failed systems like those in Venezuela, Haiti, Burma, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, or various kleptocracies in Sub-Saharan Africa The power of non-economic motivation should never be underestimated. As Francis Fukuyama has pointed out, there is no such thing as pure economic motivation in politics and, indeed, economics may not rise to the level of anything more than a secondary factor. After all, was the American revolution motivated primarily by a desire for better prices for imports or an increased standard of living? You don't need democracy to reach those objectives yet our forefathers chose democracy and freedom of the press and free speech, etc., as rallying points and the multitudes responded. Was the Civil War fought primarily for economic reasons? Certainly economics played a part but a set of values that permitted slavery was the main cause -along with sectional pride and the perceived need to safeguard one's culture. Did the youth revolt of the 1960s revolve around a desire for money or a desire to create a new kind of culture with new social values? We can justifiably argue that some of the sought-for values were not good ideas but the point is that the young rebels of that era were willing to accept a much lower standard of living for the sake of the values they believed in. So it goes through a long list of social movements, revolutions, and mass protests. If you leave out the economic factor you would be foolish, it is always there in some form, but if you insist that economics necessarily is primary you could not be more wrong. But how do we demonstrate that there is a better alternative to the existing economic regime? The reason this is essential is that otherwise any claims to an economically superior system could be perceived as will-o-the-whisps, so much wishful thinking with no basis in reality. Therefore we need to use examples from the actual economy that are far less than what is being proposed here yet similar enough that people can understand the logic and ideas involved, sufficient that no great stretch of the imagination is required to conceive a working system. The proposal is to build upon parts of some currently existing system. There are several models for what this might be but Fox News TV provides a very useful example. This is not an endorsement of everything that Fox does, most of what it broadcasts is news-tainment and is basically not worth much at all. However, Fox discovered that there was a huge untapped market for conservative (conservative-lite) news coverage and opinion. You might say that MSNBC made use of the same format for Left-wing news except that it has such low standards of journalism that it has almost no value for our purposes here and would simply muddy the waters. The point about Fox is simply that it operates on the basis of a point-of-view, in this case more-or-less conservative in character. Fox management and ownership take the view that some values that are under-reported by the mainstream media are worth putting time and effort into, seeking to change public opinion rather than simply trying to be neutral in reporting news. This is manifestly not a screed in opposition to objective news coverage. Quite the opposite, objectivity should be the primary goal, but to state an obvious fact of media life. The libertarian / laissez faire position, while it is not honored in reality, is that any and all values are equal in merit. Whichever values win the national popularity contest are the best because they have the largest market share. Actually, what this is, is promotion of nihilism, amorality, or even criminality, but to speak of the public image the media seeks to convey. Another example of an institution that seeks to change public opinion is Liberty University, which was founded in an attempt to create a counterweight to Left-dominated higher education in America. In effect, Liberty U. was created by a large Baptist church and its political allies. There are also foundation supported institutions that would like to change social values, these organizations funded by consortia of like-minded individuals or businesses that share common interests. Hence American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution. Fox, however, is not the object of philanthropic concern. It is a profitable business that needs no outside help to survive and thrive. But it could not have begun unless its potential was recognized by investors and a man with far sighted vision, Rupert Murdoch. Again, not to overstate the case. Murdoch also was responsible for the wreckage of _News of the World_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World) , a newspaper that indulged in shady practices and was not above violating the law. The point of everything is that corporations do not need to be obsessed with the bottom line nor with maximizing shareholder profitability. Yet public service enterprises can be profitable if they are based upon well conceived business models that, in turn, are built up a sense of values that are treasured by millions of people. That is, there is such a thing as citizen good will -with customers happy to make purchases or otherwise contribute to the success of a business they feel represents the social values they hold dear. Do institutions such as AEI and Brookings change public opinion? It is difficult to say "no" when considering the fact that they allow opinion leaders to flourish and produce some of their best work -that is then "consumed" by TV viewers or people who read books or attend lectures and seminars. ---------------- The objective is to work with a new kind of business model that borrows from these examples as a starting point -but with a new set of social values that the model seeks to promote. This is to discuss the kinds of values which are associated with Radical Centrist philosophy. However, this concept could be adopted by people with different outlooks, actual conservatives, actual liberals rather than today's Leftists, and so forth, including Greens and Constitution Party people and still others. This is not about philanthropy. However, it also is not about bottom line profitability. There may well be profits but, if so, they would be secondary to the purpose of promotion of values that, by reasonable standards, are in the best interests of American citizens seeking to maintain a "melting pot" society based on modern democratic principles. That is, Radical Centrism is opposed to libertarian emphasis on "freedom" as a universal solvent for all that ails us. We certainly need as many freedoms as feasible but the objective is identifying what is in our actual best interests, not free-for-all ethics that have no moral grounding. Think of it as a secular version of Christianity if you will, but it could also be conceived as secular Judaism or secular Buddhism, et. al. This is anti-nihilist, and takes the view that some behaviors are objectively good and some that are evil, and likewise for the realm of ideas and social values. It is time to abandon the view that "anything goes" values are something other than a form of insanity. What is possible? What is thinkable? The idea is promotion of corporations based on the premise that profitable businesses need to cultivate the best in people, which primarily means US citizens even if, with luck, other societies might adapt the ideas in question for themselves. Set aside the ways that "public service" is ordinarily conceived by American business firms at this time in history. By that standard public service means a form of charity primarily intended to burnish a company's image. Instead, this is all about a company's mission statement and the deepest social values of its leadership. The concept is not only to make money but to make better people generally. Hence the bottom line is not gross profit but literally making the world a better place. It is assumed that no-one in a firm will stop making useful products or providing valued services that can be appreciated prima facie for what they are. However, the model assumes that business reputations matter greatly and that with even a few significant examples most businesses would feel compelled to do likewise. In other words, a business has two responsibilities, not just one, to the shareholders. A business also has a responsibility to the community, including those members of the community who are its employees. This would not apply to the smallest businesses except to minimum extent. A business with 10 employees is in no position to invest much of anything in the wider community. But at some point, we can use 100 employees as a benchmark, responsibility to the community should become a factor of consequence, perhaps calling for a 1% investment. At 1000 employees this might become 5%, and so forth up to 10% or so for the very largest and most profitable corporations. This does not mean government regulation, it means transparency by law, so that a company's expenditures for genuine public service can be known to anyone with an interest, including elected officials, journalists, and educators. Where the government would play a role would be in expediting the process by passage of laws that would make things easier for businesses to live up to these standards. Where there would be regulations would be in passage of laws that requite foreign businesses to adopt systems for their US operations that are consistent with those enacted by American business companies. Exactly what might be involved would be left for future determination; there are many kinds of businesses, including those with few employees in America but that feature large sums of money. Under no circumstances should American companies be disadvantaged with respect to non-American firms doing business in the United States. This is not a "tax." Monies spent for public service as outlined here would be disbursed at the discretion of each business. Moreover, simply because a business provides a public service does not need to mean that it operates in the red. Like Fox TV it might even earn a good deal of capital and be positive financially for a business sponsor. Still, by their nature some public services might not be able to do more than break even. But any such venture that loses money could be terminated with short notice so that a new and better service can be launched that can be self-sustaining. The objective is to create a new kind of competition: Who can do the most good for the community? This means every type of business from bakeries to mega-banks will billions in assets. The objective is not simple charity, to repeat this point. What is intended is that a business would invest in a public service venture that has some direct relationship to its core enterprises. A publishing giant might want to set up a new kind of university, a software business might want to establish an online college that offers training in computer skills to people who are seeking employment after an industrial company ceased operations. A medical supplier or pharmaceutical firm might want to create a program that offers low cost dental services based on low incomes. Or, for example, a consortium of companies might want to take part in a joint venture for a massive project such as cleaning up Salton Sea in southern California and turning it into a middle class community with a world class school system. There are numerous possibilities. Any business should benefit directly from whatever public service project in takes part in. This is not meant to feature false modesty whereby a company is recognized by a plaque in a park or a credit on a TV show, but full recognition for services rendered. Something that can realize maximum good publicity and due recognition by political and other leaders. Some projects, if not all, might well be innovative and create new products as part of the public service, or test existing products for reliability or new uses. Any project should be directly associated with its business sponsor. "We are Random House, we publish quality books and we created Writers University, in a league of its own, rated as highly in its subject areas as any Ivy League school -and we did it with a performance based system that has no faculty tenure, which integrates written text with innovations in computer software, and which is so good that our graduates are in demand all over the world." Think of your own examples of what can be done. The objective is to mobilize American business in a national competition not to make America great in ways that we can scarcely imagine today. The objective, and this is only a first sketch for this idea, is to create an economic system that re-creates Capitalism such that doing entirely good things for American communities throughout the country and, just maybe, sets an example for other nations to emulate. Capitalism should not only be synonymous with making money, it should do good things for American citizens -structurally, as part of the process of being profitable. Billy Rojas -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
